The Editor:
How Birch Bay’s registered voter residents get to decide on incorporation is important.
In 2008 the feasibility study that’s often cited by the Political Action Committee (PAC) favoring incorporation was done first. In its summary it stated that the study was done “to provide key information to community members as they debate their governance future. If residents decide that incorporation is something they would like to pursue, they can initiate the process by identifying a proposed area of incorporation, collecting signatures and filing a notice of intent,” (p. ES-2). Thus, other steps would follow the study.
Now, the main argument for incorporation seems to be, “We should be making our own decisions.” How could someone be against making our own decision? The “make our own decision” banner provokes a probable reaction, likely biasing responses to “yes.” It’s kind of like saying, “Your car is old and needs some work. Are you in favor of getting a new car?” Who wouldn’t say yes to that? But knowing about pros and cons might make you respond differently.
Yet, according to this week’s issue of The Northern Light, Matt Berry said, “We are hoping to get the ball rolling with a notice of proposed incorporation [those are filed to the County Boundary Review Board] as soon as we have an idea on opinions …” It seems there’s a move to filing a notice of incorporation based on (in my view) flawed opinion surveys that don’t provide valid information.
There are probably real constraints and concerns about raising and spending money to fund a study before knowing if there’s interest in incorporating. Why spend the money if there’s not? But the current surveys are not structured to yield valid information about residents’ interest, and I’m sure there is at least some more relevant background information that could be shared without a full-blown study.
Please revise and redo the survey; don’t use the first or current surveys’ results. To be clear, I’m not against incorporation as it might well be a good thing, I’m just uncomfortable with the surveys and process as I see it.
Chuck Kinzer
Birch Bay
The Editor:
I understand that some people believe we should have more control locally on how our taxes are spent in the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area.
Before we proceed any further with an incorporation proposal, the estimated cost of this endeavor should be upfront and transparent now, not later.
What is the initial cost of a city hall building, mayor and/or city manager, city clerk, finance manager and staff, police station, police officers, jail and staff, public works department, building, and trucks/equipment, and a community and economic development department etc. while Birch Bay roads and parks are still maintained, snow plowed, cleaned up after flooding and repaired? This is a huge initial price tag to get “local
control.”
With rumors of the city of Blaine’s revenue shortfalls, national inflation increasing and rising interest rates, is now a good time to be considering such a huge expense?
If only 500 people responded to the governance survey and there is a population of 10,000 plus people in Birch Bay, that is only a mere five percent response to the survey.
It is interesting to note that the main proponents behind Birch Bay incorporation now and in the past (1991 and in 2004 with Kask Consulting) have been chamber of commerce members and real estate persons. Do they have something to gain from incorporation that the average Birch Bay property owners do not?
Cathy Cleveland
Birch Bay
The Editor:
Birch Bay incorporation? Yes! It costs all of us county taxpayers as Birch Bay residents continue to need the county to provide them urban services, such as police protection. Plus, incorporating its expensive, as Birch Bay would need to build a town hall, police facility and incur other expenses required. If instead, Blaine and Birch Bay merged, they’d save money and so would the rest of us.
We could call it Birch Blaine (sounds almost the same), or Blirch Bay, or just Blirch, my favorite. There weren’t any birch trees here anyway when Vancouver landed, just lots of alders, so the name’s always been a stretch.
Plus, a larger, merged community would help level the sometimes marginally competent Blaine bureaucratic leadership, and bring accountability to the leadership of Birch Bay, currently in the hands of well-intentioned, if energetic and capable volunteers, and would be a way for our Canadian guests to help pay their way for the services they too enjoy.
Whatever, we need to act fast before rising sea levels make Birch Bay into a destination for little more than driftwood, jellyfish and scuba divers.
Jack Kintner
Blaine
The Editor:
Yet another good letter written by Jay Taber last week. Thank you again for your wise words.
Quiet. It’s something that brings people here as a respite from their congested and crowded lives. For those living here, that quiet is so very refreshing. Quiet however is a double-edged sword for Blaine. It can send a signal that residents don’t care. It can be “heard” as acceptance of those profiteers desiring to build up the west side of Peace Portal, and allowing decreased parking requirements as they build.
These profiteers will enrich only themselves while disenfranchising residents who will bear the future “costs.” Their promises of affluence for Blaine are false as they conveniently forget to include any downside with their plans. They’ve been guilty of conflict of interest, distorted in documents and in speaking before city council. Their plans will irreversibly change downtown Blaine into something grotesque. Our endowment – the vistas, quiet and smalltown virtues will all disappear forever.
How might their west side of Peace Portal appear? Look at the corner of H and 3rd streets. Imagine a row of those tall (turn of the wrong century) buildings as they block water views. Then too, what’s with the facades of buildings owned by one of these profiteers painted black? A harbinger? How is that welcoming?
Just because someone buys property with a plan to build on it doesn’t mean that the city needs to change its building codes for them. That’s like moving in next to an airport and then demanding that the planes stop flying. It’s a risk taken, not a given. Only recently residents said “no!” to these same requests. It’s too soon to again press for change.
Doesn’t the city comprehensive plan specify major change to codes be presented for mandatory public engagement? When will that happen? The city also has style components in its building codes. How does all this adhere to that? When will our city manager ever meet with residents to know us and learn what we want?
Blaine, it’s time to stop being quiet and to start being heard.
Ray Leone
Blaine
The Editor:
We, the people elected Blaine council members to represent us, not their own special interest.
Mike Harmon, the city manager, presented a fantastic informational sheet to council after 20 years of planning to move forward. He did so after discussing with the city attorney and the planning department. When the city is short on funding, this project brings in sales tax on each new home and greater tax dollars on total development.
Council members decided again to postpone progress, to review policies that are above housing standards instead of following the recommendations of staff, city manager and city attorney.
Shame on them for slowing down progress for their own personal interest.
Bob Boule
Blaine
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here